Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 56955 

1Therefore, a request for a new shipper review 

based on the semiannual anniversary month, 

August, was due to the Department by the final day 

of August 2006. See 19 CFR 351.214(d)(2). 

2 Jisheng made no subsequent shipments to the 

United States, which the Department corroborated 

using data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’). 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

a request for a new shipper review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), received on 

August 21, 2006, meets the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for 

initiation. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

of this new shipper review is February 

1, 2006, through July 31, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2312. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice announcing the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

preserved mushrooms from the PRC was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 19, 1999. See Notice of 

Amendment of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 8308 

(February 19, 1999).1 On August 31, 

2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), 

the Department received a new shipper 

review request from Guangxi Jisheng 

Foods, Inc. (‘‘Jisheng’’). Jisheng certified 

that it is both the producer and exporter 

of the subject merchandise upon which 

the request for a new shipper review is 

based. 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), 

Jisheng certified that it did not export 

certain preserved mushrooms to the 

United States during the period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’). In addition, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), 

Jisheng certified that, since the 

initiation of the investigation, it has 

never been affiliated with any PRC 

exporter or producer who exported 

certain preserved mushrooms to the 

United States during the POI, including 

those not individually examined during 

the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Jisheng also 

certified that its export activities were 

not controlled by the central 

government of the PRC. 

In addition to the certifications 

described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), Jisheng submitted 

documentation establishing the 

following: (1) the date on which Jisheng 

first shipped certain preserved 

mushrooms for export to the United 

States and the date on which the certain 

preserved mushrooms were first 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption; (2) the volume of its 

first shipment;2 and (3) the date of its 

first sale to an unaffiliated customer in 

the United States. 

The Department conducted CBP 

database queries to confirm that 

Jisheng’s shipment of subject 

merchandise had entered the United 

States for consumption and had been 

suspended for antidumping duties. 

Initiation of New Shipper Reviews 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the 

Department finds that Jisheng’s request 

meets the threshold requirements for 

initiation of a new shipper review for 

the shipment of certain preserved 

mushrooms from the PRC it produced 

and exported. See Memo to the File from 

Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9: New Shipper Review 

Initiation Checklist, dated September 

26, 2006. 

The POR for this new shipper review 

is February 1, 2006, through July 31, 

2006. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). 

The Department intends to issue the 

preliminary results of this review no 

later than 180 days from the date of 

initiation, and final results of this 

review no later than 270 days from the 

date of initiation. See section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Interested 

parties requiring access to proprietary 

information in this new shipper review 

should submit applications for 

disclosure under administrative 

protective order in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This 

initiation and notice are published in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 

351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: September 22, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–15978 Filed 9–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 083106B] 

Small Takes of Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Specified Activities; LowEnergy Seismic Surveys in the South 

Pacific Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application 

and proposed incidental take 

authorization; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography (SIO), a part of the 

University of California, for an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to take small numbers of marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

conducting an oceanographic survey in 

the South Pacific Ocean (SPO). Under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an authorization 

to SIO to incidentally take, by 

harassment, small numbers of several 

species of cetaceans for a limited period 

of time in December 2006, and January 

2007. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than October 30, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to: 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225, or by telephoning the 

contact listed here. The mailbox address 

for providing email comments is 

PR1.083106B @noaa.gov. Comments 

sent via e-mail, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 10–

megabyte file size. A copy of the 

application (containing a list of the 

references used in this document) may 

be obtained by writing to this address or 

by telephoning the contact listed here 

and are also available at:http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#iha. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–

2289, ext 128. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
56956 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of marine mammals 

by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization shall be granted if 

NMFS finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, 

and that the permissible methods of 

taking and requirements pertaining to 

the mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

of such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ’’...an impact resulting from 

the specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. Except 

with respect to certain activities not 

pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: 

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, 

but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment]. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–

day time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a 30–day public 

notice and comment period on any 

proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the comment period, NMFS must 

either issue or deny issuance of the 

authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On July 24, 2006, NMFS received an 

application from SIO for the taking, by 

harassment, of several species of marine 

mammals (see Marine Mammals 

Affected by this Activity later in this 

document) incidental to conducting a 

low-energy marine seismic survey 

program during December 2006 and 

January 2007 in the SPO. SIO plans to 

conduct a seismic survey at several sites 

in the SPO (as illustrated in Figure 1 in 

SIO’s application) as part of the 

Integrated Ocean Drilling Program 

(IODP). 

The purpose of the research program 

is to conduct a piston/ gravity coring, 

magnetic, and seismic survey program 

at 12 sites in the SPO. The results will 

be used to (1) document the metabolic 

activities, genetic composition, and 

biomass of prokaryotic (principally 

unicellular organisms without a cell 

nucleus) communities in the subseafloor 

sediments with very low total activity; 

(2) quantify the extent to which those 

communities may be supplied with 

harvestable energy by water radiolysis, 

a process independent of the surface 

photosynthetic world; and (3) survey 

broad characteristics of subseafloor 

communities and habitats in this region, 

in order to refine the planning and 

objectives of a specific IODP drilling 

proposal. 

Included in the research planned for 

2006 is the use of multi-beam and Chirp 

techniques to map the seafloor, and 

high-resolution seismic methods to 

image the subsea floor. The seismic 

survey is required to locate optimal 

piston/gravity- coring sites. 

The seismic surveys will involve one 

vessel. The source vessel, the R/V Roger 

Revelle, will deploy a pair of low-energy 

Generator-Injector (GI) airguns as an 

energy source (each with a discharge 

volume of 45 in3), plus a 800–m (1476–

ft) long, 48–channel, towed hydrophone 

streamer. As the airguns are towed along 

the survey lines, the receiving system 

will receive the returning acoustic 

signals. 

The Revelle is scheduled to depart 

from Apia, Samoa, on or about 

December 7, 2006, and to arrive at 

Dunedin, New Zealand, on or about 

January 17, 2007. The program will 

consist of approximately 1930 km (1042 

nm) of surveys, including turns. Water 

depths within the seismic survey areas 

are 3200–5700 m (10499–18701 ft). The 

surveys will be conducted entirely in 

international waters. The GI guns will 

be operated on a small grid for about 6–

10 hours at each of 12 sites during 

approximately December 10, 2006, to 

January 13, 2007. There will be 

additional seismic operations associated 

with equipment testing, start-up, and 

repeat coverage of any areas where 

initial data quality is sub-standard. 

All planned geophysical data 

acquisition activities will be conducted 

by SIO scientists who have proposed the 

study. The vessel will be self-contained, 

and the crew will live aboard the vessel 

for the entire cruise. 

In addition to the operations of the GI 

guns, a 3.5–kHz sub-bottom profiler, 

passive geophysical sensors to conduct 

magnetic surveys, and a KongsbergSimrad EM–120 multi-beam sonar will 

be used continuously throughout the 

cruise. 

The energy to the airguns is 

compressed air supplied by compressors 

on board the source vessel. Seismic 

pulses will be emitted at intervals of 6–

10 seconds (sec.). At a speed of 5–8 

knots (9.3–14.8 km/h), the 6–10 sec. 

spacing corresponds to a shot interval of 

approximately 15.5–41 m (51–135 ft). 

The generator chamber of each GI 

gun, the one responsible for introducing 

the sound pulse into the ocean, is 45 

in3. The larger (105 in3) injector 

chamber injects air into the previouslygenerated bubble to maintain its shape, 

and does not introduce more sound into 

the water. The two 45/105 in3 GI guns 

will be towed 8 m (26.2 ft) apart side by 

side, 21 m (68.9 ft) behind the Revelle, 

at a depth of 2 m (6.6 ft). 

General-Injector Airguns 

The Revelle’s 2 GI-airguns will be 

used during this proposed program. 

These GI-airguns have a zero to peak 

(peak) source output of 230.7 dB re 1 

microPascal-m (3.4 bar-m) and a peakto-peak (pk-pk) level of 235.9B (6.2 barm). However, these downward-directed 

source levels do not represent actual 

sound levels that can be measured at 

any location in the water. Rather, they 

represent the level that would be found 

1 m (3.3 ft) from a hypothetical point 

source emitting the same total amount 

of sound as is emitted by the combined 

airguns in the airgun array. The actual 

received level at any location in the 

water near the airguns will not exceed 

the source level of the strongest 

individual source and actual levels 

experienced by any organism more than 

1 m (3.3 ft) from any GI gun will be 

significantly lower. In this case, that 

will be about 224.6 dB re 1 microPa-m 

peak, or 229.8 dB re 1 microPa-m peakto-peak (pk-pk). 

Further, the root mean square (rms) 

received levels that are used as impact 

criteria for marine mammals (see 

Richardson et al., 1995) are not directly 

comparable to these peak or pk-pk 

values that are normally used to 

characterize source levels of airgun 

arrays. The measurement units used to 

describe airgun sources, peak or pk-pk 

decibels, are always higher than the rms 

decibels referred to in biological 

literature. For example, a measured 

received level of 160 dB rms in the far 

field would typically correspond to a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 56957 

peak measurement of about 170 to 172 

dB, and to a pk-pk measurement of 

about 176 to 178 decibels, as measured 

for the same pulse received at the same 

location (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al. 

1998, 2000). The precise difference 

between rms and peak or pk-pk values 

depends on the frequency content and 

duration of the pulse, among other 

factors. However, the rms level is 

always lower than the peak or pk-pk 

level for an airgun-type source. 

The depth at which the sources are 

towed has a major impact on the 

maximum near-field output, because the 

energy output is constrained by ambient 

pressure. The normal tow depth of the 

sources to be used in this project is 2.0 

m (6.6 ft), where the ambient pressure 

is approximately 3 decibars. This also 

limits output, as the 3 decibars of 

confining pressure cannot fully 

constrain the source output, with the 

result that there is loss of energy at the 

sea surface. Additional discussion of the 

characteristics of airgun pulses is 

provided in SIO application and in 

previous Federal Register documents 

(see 69 FR 31792 (June 7, 2004) or 69 

FR 34996 (June 23, 2004)). 

Received sound levels have been 

modeled by Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory (L-DEO) for a number of 

airgun configurations, including two 

45–in3 Nucleus G-guns, in relation to 

distance and direction from the airguns. 

The L-DEO model does not allow for 

bottom interactions, and is therefore 

most directly applicable to deep water. 

Based on the modeling, estimates of the 

maximum distances from the GI guns 

where sound levels of 190, 180, and 160 

dB microPascal-m (rms) are predicted to 

be received are shown in Table 1. 

Because the model results are for the G 

guns, which have more energy than GI 

guns of the same size, those distances 

are overestimates of the distances for the 

45 in3 GI guns. 

TABLE 1. DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS 190, 180, AND 160 DB RE 1 MICROPA (RMS) MIGHT BE RECEIVED FROM

TWO 45-IN G GUNS, SIMILAR TO THE TWO 45-IN3 GI GUNS THAT WILL BE USED DURING THE SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE

SOUTH PACIFIC OCEAN DURING DECEMBER, 2006 AND JANUARY, 2007. DISTANCES ARE BASED ON MODEL RESULTS

PROVIDED BY L-DEO. 

Estimated Distances at Received Levels(m) 

Water depth 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB 

>1000m 10 40 400 

Empirical data concerning the 180- 

and 160- dB distances have been 

acquired based on measurements during 

the acoustic verification study 

conducted by L-DEO in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico from May 27 to June 3, 

2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004). Although the 

results are limited, the data showed that 

radii around the airguns where the 

received level would be 180 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms), the safety criterion applicable to 

cetaceans (NMFS, 2000), varies with 

water depth. Similar depth-related 

variation is likely in the 190–dB 

distances applicable to pinnipeds. 

Correction factors were developed for 

water depths 100 – 1000 m (328 – 3281 

ft) and less than 100 m. As the proposed 

SIO survey will occur in water depths 

of 3200–5700 m (10499–18701 ft), 

correction factors are not relevant here. 

The empirical data indicate that, for 

deep water (greater than 1000 m (3281 

ft)), the L-DEO model tends to 

overestimate the received sound levels 

at a given distance (Tolstoy et al., 2004). 

However, to be precautionary pending 

acquisition of additional empirical data, 

SIO proposes that the safety radii during 

airgun operations in deep water will be 

the values predicted by L-DEO’s model 

(Table 1). Therefore, the assumed 180- 

and 190–dB radii are 40 m (131 ft) and 

10 m (33 ft), respectively. 

Bathymetric Sonar and Sub-bottom 

Profiler 

A description of the KongsbergSimrad EM120 multi-beam sonar and 

the sub-bottom profiler onboard the 

Revelle can be reviewed in the SIO 

application. These descriptions have 

also been provided previously (see 71 

FR 6041, February 6, 2006 and 71 FR 

14839, March 24, 2006) and do not need 

to be repeated here. 

Characteristics of Airgun Pulses 

Discussion of the characteristics of 

airgun pulses was provided in several 

previous Federal Register documents 

(see 69 FR 31792 (June 7, 2004) or 69 

FR 34996 (June 23, 2004)) and is not 

repeated here. Reviewers are 

encouraged to read these earlier 

documents for additional information. 

Marine Mammals Affected by the 

Activity 

Forty species of cetacean, including 

31 odontocete (dolphins and small- and 

large-toothed whales) species and nine 

mysticete (baleen whales) species, are 

believed by scientists to occur in the 

SPO in the proposed seismic survey 

area. Detailed information on these 

species is contained in the SIO 

application and the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) EA which are 

available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha. Table 2 

in both the SIO application and NSF EA 

summarizes the habitat, occurrence, and 

regional population estimate for these 

species. The following cetacean species 

may be affected by this low-intensity 

seismic survey: Sperm whale, pygmy 

and dwarf sperm whales, southern 

bottlenose whale, Arnoux’s beaked 

whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale, 

Shepherd’s beaked whale, mesoplodont 

beaked whales (Andrew’s beaked whale, 

Blainville’s beaked whale, gingkotoothed whale, Gray’s beaked whale, 

Hector’s beaked whale, spade-toothed 

whale, strap-toothed whale), melonheaded whale, pygmy killer whale, false 

killer whale, killer whale, long-finned 

pilot whale, short-finned pilot whale, 

rough-toothed dolphin, bottlenose 

dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, 

spinner dolphin, striped dolphin, shortbeaked common dolphin, hourglass 

dolphin, Fraser’s dolphin , Risso’s 

dolphin, southern right whale dolphin, 

spectacled porpoise, humpback whale, 

southern right whale, pygmy right 

whale, common minke whale, Antarctic 

minke whale, Bryde’s whale, sei whale, 

fin whale and blue whale. 

Five species of pinnipeds could 

potentially occur in the proposed 

seismic survey area: southern elephant 

seal, leopard seal, crabeater seal, 

Antarctic fur seal, and the sub-Antarctic 

fur seal. All are likely to be rare, if they 

occur at all, as their normal 

distributions are south of the SIO survey 

area. Outside the breeding season, 

however, they disperse widely in the 

open ocean (Boyd, 2002; King, 1982; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
56958 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 

Rogers, 2002). Only three species of 

pinniped are known to wander regularly 

into the SIO survey area: the Antarctic 

fur seal, the sub-Antarctic fur seal, and 

the leopard seal (Reeves et al., 1999). 

Leopard seals are seen as far north as 

the Cook Islands (Rogers, 2002). 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

As outlined in previous NMFS 

documents, the effects of noise on 

marine mammals are highly variable, 

and can be categorized as follows (based 

on Richardson et al., 1995): 

(1) The noise may be too weak to be 

heard at the location of the animal (i.e., 

lower than the prevailing ambient noise 

level, the hearing threshold of the 

animal at relevant frequencies, or both); 

(2) The noise may be audible but not 

strong enough to elicit any overt 

behavioral response; 

(3) The noise may elicit reactions of 

variable conspicuousness and variable 

relevance to the well being of the 

marine mammal; these can range from 

temporary alert responses to active 

avoidance reactions such as vacating an 

area at least until the noise event ceases; 

(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine 

mammal may exhibit diminishing 

responsiveness (habituation), or 

disturbance effects may persist; the 

latter is most likely with sounds that are 

highly variable in characteristics, 

infrequent and unpredictable in 

occurrence, and associated with 

situations that a marine mammal 

perceives as a threat; 

(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is 

strong enough to be heard has the 

potential to reduce (mask) the ability of 

a marine mammal to hear natural 

sounds at similar frequencies, including 

calls from conspecifics, and underwater 

environmental sounds such as surf 

noise; 

(6) If mammals remain in an area 

because it is important for feeding, 

breeding or some other biologically 

important purpose even though there is 

chronic exposure to noise, it is possible 

that there could be noise-induced 

physiological stress; this might in turn 

have negative effects on the well-being 

or reproduction of the animals involved; 

and 

(7) Very strong sounds have the 

potential to cause temporary or 

permanent reduction in hearing 

sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and 

presumably marine mammals, received 

sound levels must far exceed the 

animal’s hearing threshold for there to 

be any temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

in its hearing ability. For transient 

sounds, the sound level necessary to 

cause TTS is inversely related to the 

duration of the sound. Received sound 

levels must be even higher for there to 

be risk of permanent hearing 

impairment. In addition, intense 

acoustic or explosive events may cause 

trauma to tissues associated with organs 

vital for hearing, sound production, 

respiration and other functions. This 

trauma may include minor to severe 

hemorrhage. 

Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine 

Mammals 

The SIO application and two previous 

SIO IHA notices (71 FR 6041, February 

6, 2006, and 71 FR 14839, March 24, 

2006) provide information on what is 

known about the effects on marine 

mammals of the types of seismic 

operations planned by SIO. The types of 

effects considered in these documents 

are (1) tolerance, (2) masking of natural 

sounds, (2) behavioral disturbance, (3) 

potential hearing impairment, and (4) 

other non-auditory physical effects. This 

information is incorporated herein. 

Please refer to these documents for 

information and analyses on potential 

impacts to marine mammals by seismic 

activities. 

Summarizing from these analyses, 

given the relatively small size of the 

airguns planned for the present project, 

SIO and NMFS believe it is very 

unlikely that there would be any cases 

of temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, or non-auditory physical 

effects. Also, behavioral disturbance is 

expected to be limited to distances less 

than 400 m (1312 ft) from the seismic 

source. This is the zone calculated for 

160 dB or the onset of Level B 

(behavioral) harassment. As a result, 

acoustic effects are anticipated to be 

considerably less than would be the 

case with a large array of airguns. 

Possible Effects of Mid-frequency Sonar 

Signals 

A multi-beam bathymetric sonar and 

a sub-bottom profiler will be operated 

from the source vessel essentially 

continuously during much of the 

planned survey. Details about these 

sonars and potential effects on marine 

mammals (masking, behavioral 

response, hearing impairment and other 

physical effects) have been provided in 

the SIO application and by NMFS 

previously (see 71 FR 6041, February 6, 

2006, and 71 FR 14839, March 24, 2006) 

and are not repeated here. This 

information is incorporated herein by 

citation. Please refer to these documents 

for information and analyses on 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

by these mid-frequency sonar activities. 

Estimates of Take by Harassment for 

the SPO Seismic Survey 

Although information contained in 

several documents cited and 

summarized in SIO’s application 

indicates that injury to marine mammals 

from seismic sounds potentially occurs 

at sound pressure levels significantly 

higher than 180 and 190 dB, NMFS’

current criteria for onset of Level A 

harassment of cetaceans and pinnipeds 

from impulse sound are, respectively, 

180 and 190 re 1 microPa rms. The rms 

level of a seismic pulse is typically 

about 10 dB less than its peak level and 

about 16 dB less than its pk-pk level 

(Greene, 1997; McCauley et al., 1998; 

2000a). Given the small zone of impact 

due to the low-energy seismic sources 

and the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring for this survey (see 

Mitigation and Monitoring later in this 

document), all anticipated effects 

involve, at most, a temporary change in 

behavior that may constitute Level B 

(behavioral) harassment, and no injury 

or mortality is likely. The proposed 

mitigation measures will essentially 

eliminate the possibility of Level A 

harassment or mortality. As described 

later, SIO has calculated the ‘‘best 

estimates’’ for the numbers of animals 

that could be taken by Level B 

harassment during the proposed SPO 

seismic survey using data on marine 

mammal density (numbers per unit 

area) and estimates of the size of the 

affected area, as shown in the predicted 

RMS radii table (see Table 1). 

The Level B harassment estimates are 

based on a consideration of the number 

of marine mammals that might be 

exposed to sound levels at or higher 

than 160 dB, the criterion for the onset 

of Level B harassment, by operations 

with the 2 GI-gun array planned to be 

used for this project. The anticipated 

zones of influence of the multi-beam 

sonar and sub-bottom profiler are less 

than that for the airguns, so it is 

assumed that during simultaneous 

operations of these instruments that any 

marine mammals close enough to be 

affected by the multi-beam and subbottom profiler sonars would already be 

affected by the airguns. Therefore, no 

additional incidental takings are 

included for animals that might be 

affected by the multi-beam sonar. Also, 

given their characteristics (described in 

SIO’s application and analyzed by 

NMFS in previous SIO authorizations), 

no Level B harassment takings are 

considered likely when the multibeam 

and sub-bottom profiler are operating 

but the airguns are silent. 

SIO notes that it is difficult to make 

accurate, scientifically defensible, and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 56959 

observationally verifiable estimates of 

the number of individuals likely to be 

subject to low-level harassment by the 

noise from SIO’s GI guns. There are 

many uncertainties in marine mammal 

distribution and seasonally varying 

abundance, and in local horizontal and 

vertical distribution; in marine mammal 

reactions to varying frequencies and 

levels of acoustic pulses; and in 

perceived sound levels at different 

horizontal and oblique ranges from the 

source. 

The best estimate of the potential 

number of exposures to received levels 

equal to, or greater than, 160 dB re 1 

microPa (rms) was calculated by SIO by 

multiplying the expected density of the 

species/stock; times the anticipated total 

line-kilometers of operations with the 2 

GI guns (including turns and additional 

buffer line km to allow for repeating of 

lines due to equipment malfunction, 

bad weather, etc.), times the cross-track 

distances within which received sound 

levels are predicted to be 160 dB or 

greater. 

For the 2 GI guns, that cross track 

distance is 2x the predicted 160–dB 

radii of 400 m (1312 ft) in water depths 

greater than 1000 m (3281 ft). Based on 

that method, SIO obtained the ‘‘best’’

and ‘‘maximum’’ estimates of the 

number of marine mammal exposures to 

airgun sounds 160 dB re 1 microPa 

(rms) and higher for each of the 

ecological provinces using the reported 

average and maximum densities from 

Tables 3 and 4 in SIO’s application. The 

two estimates were then added to give 

total estimated exposures. The estimates 

show that very small numbers of the 

five endangered large whale species 

may be exposed to such noise levels 

(Table 5). SIO’s best estimates for these 

species are one exposure each for the 

sperm whale, southern right whale, sei 

whale, and fin whale. The vast majority 

of the best estimate for exposures to 

seismic sounds 160 dB and higher 

would involve delphinids. Best 

estimates of the number of exposures of 

cetaceans, in descending order, are 

bottlenose dolphin (292 exposures), 

rough-toothed and spotted dolphin (80 

exposures each), and southern right 

whale dolphin (73 exposures). SIO 

believes that based on the empirical 

calibration data collected in the Gulf of 

Mexico for 2 GI guns in deep water, 

actual 160–dB distances in deep water 

are likely to be less than predicted 

(Tolstoy et al., 2004) and, therefore, the 

predicted numbers of marine mammals 

that might be exposed to sounds 160 dB 

or greater may be somewhat 

overestimated. 

While data regarding distribution, 

seasonal abundance, and response of 

pinnipeds to seismic sonar is sparse, 

NMFS believes the Revelle is unlikely to 

encounter any of the four pinniped 

species that live, for at least part of the 

year, in SIO’s proposed survey area 

because of the decreased likelihood of 

encountering them in the very deep 

water, the relatively small area proposed 

to be ensonified, and the likely 

effectiveness of the required mitigation 

measures in such a small area. 

Table 2 provides the best estimate of 

the numbers of each species that could 

be exposed to seismic sounds equal to, 

or greater than, 160 dB and the number 

of marine mammals requested to be 

taken by Level B harassment. A detailed 

description on the methodology used by 

SIO to arrive at the estimates of Level 

B harassment takes that are provided in 

Table 2 can be found in SIO’s 

application for the SPO survey. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
56960 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN28SE06.328</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 56961 

Conclusions 

Effects on Cetaceans 

Strong avoidance reactions by several 

species of mysticetes to seismic vessels 

have been observed at ranges up to 6–

8 km (3.2–4.3 nm) and occasionally as 

far as 20–30 km (10.8–16.2 nm) from the 

source vessel. However, reactions at the 

longer distances appear to be atypical of 

most species and situations, particularly 

when feeding whales are involved. Few 

mysticetes are expected to be 

encountered during the proposed survey 

in the SPO (Table 2) and disturbance 

effects would be confined to shorter 

distances given the low-energy acoustic 

source to be used during this project. In 

addition, the estimated numbers 

presented in Table 2 are considered 

overestimates of actual numbers that 

may be harassed. 

Odontocete reactions to seismic 

pulses, or at least the reactions of 

dolphins, are expected to extend to 

lesser distances than are those of 

mysticetes. Odontocete low-frequency 

hearing is less sensitive than that of 

mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen 

from seismic vessels. In fact, there are 

documented instances of dolphins 

approaching active seismic vessels. 

However, dolphins as well as some 

other types of odontocetes sometimes 

show avoidance responses and/or other 

changes in behavior when near 

operating seismic vessels. 

Taking into account the small size 

and the relatively low sound output of 

the 2 GI-gun array to be used, and the 

mitigation measures that are planned, 

effects on cetaceans are generally 

expected to be limited to avoidance of 

a small area around the seismic 

operation and short-term changes in 

behavior, falling within the MMPA 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN28SE06.329</GPH>
56962 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 

definition of Level B harassment. 

Furthermore, the estimated numbers of 

animals potentially exposed to sound 

levels sufficient to cause appreciable 

disturbance are very low percentages of 

the affected populations. 

Based on the 160–dB criterion, the 

best estimates of the numbers of 

individual cetaceans that may be 

exposed to sounds of 160 dB re 1 

microPa (rms) or greater represent from 

0 to approximately 0.07 percent of the 

regional SPO species populations (Table 

2). In the case of endangered 

balaenopterids, it is likely that no more 

than 1 humpback, sei, or fin whale will 

be exposed to seismic sounds 160 dB re 

1 microPa (rms) or greater, based on 

estimated densities of those species in 

the survey region. Therefore, SIO has 

requested an authorization to expose up 

to 1 individuals of each of these species 

to seismic sounds of 160 dB or greater 

during the proposed survey given the 

possibility of encountering one or more 

groups. Best estimates of blue whales 

are that no individuals would be 

potentially exposed to seismic pulses 

with received levels 160 dB re 1 

microPa (rms) or greater (Table 2). 

Higher numbers of delphinids may be 

affected by the proposed seismic 

surveys, but the population sizes of 

species likely to occur in the survey area 

are large, and the numbers potentially 

affected are small relative to population 

sizes (Table 2). As a result, NMFS 

believes that the seismic survey 

proposed by SIO will result in only 

small numbers of cetaceans being 

harassed incidental to conducting that 

activity. 

Mitigation measures such as 

controlled speed, course alteration, 

observers, ramp ups, and shut downs 

when marine mammals are seen within 

defined ranges should further reduce 

short-term reactions, and minimize any 

effects on hearing. In all cases, the 

effects are expected to be short-term, 

with no lasting adverse biological 

consequence. In light of the type of 

effects expected and the small 

percentages of affected stocks of 

cetaceans, the action is expected to have 

no more than a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks of cetaceans. 

Effects on Pinnipeds 

Five pinniped species may be 

encountered at the survey sites, but 

their distribution and numbers have not 

been documented in the proposed 

survey area. In all likelihood, these 

species will be in southern feeding areas 

during the period for this survey. 

However, to ensure that the SIO project 

remains in compliance with the MMPA 

in the event that a few pinnipeds are 

encountered, SIO has requested an 

authorization to expose up to 3–5 

individuals of each of the five pinniped 

species to seismic sounds with rms 

levels 160 dB re 1 microPa or greater. 

Therefore, the proposed survey would 

have, at most, a short-term effect on 

their behavior and no long-term impacts 

on individual pinnipeds or their 

populations. Responses of pinnipeds to 

acoustic disturbance are variable, but 

usually quite limited. Effects are 

expected to be limited to short-term and 

localized behavioral changes falling 

within the MMPA definition of Level B 

harassment. As is the case for cetaceans, 

the short-term exposures to sounds from 

the two GI-guns are not expected to 

result in any long-term consequences for 

the individuals or their populations and 

the activity is expected to have no more 

than a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks of pinnipeds. 

Potential Effects on Habitat 

The proposed seismic survey will not 

result in any permanent impact on 

habitats used by marine mammals, or to 

the food sources they utilize. The main 

impact issue associated with the 

proposed activity will be temporarily 

elevated noise levels and the associated 

direct effects on marine mammals. 

One of the reasons for the adoption of 

airguns as the standard energy source 

for marine seismic surveys was that they 

(unlike the explosives used in the 

distant past) do not result in any 

appreciable fish kill. Various 

experimental studies showed that 

airgun discharges cause little or no fish 

kill, and that any injurious effects were 

generally limited to the water within a 

meter or so of an airgun. However, it has 

recently been found that injurious 

effects on captive fish, especially on fish 

hearing, may occur at somewhat greater 

distances than previously thought 

(McCauley et al., 2000a,b, 2002; 2003). 

Even so, any injurious effects on fish 

would be limited to short distances from 

the source. Also, many of the fish that 

might otherwise be within the injuryzone are likely to be displaced from this 

region prior to the approach of the 

airguns through avoidance reactions to 

the approaching seismic vessel or to the 

airgun sounds as received at distances 

beyond the injury radius. 

Fish often react to sounds, especially 

strong and/or intermittent sounds of low 

frequency. Sound pulses at received 

levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa (peak) may 

cause subtle changes in behavior. Pulses 

at levels of 180 dB (peak) may cause 

noticeable changes in behavior 

(Chapman and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson 

et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). It also 

appears that fish often habituate to 

repeated strong sounds rather rapidly, 

on time scales of minutes to an hour. 

However, the habituation does not 

endure, and resumption of the 

disturbing activity may again elicit 

disturbance responses from the same 

fish. 

Fish near the airguns are likely to dive 

or exhibit some other kind of behavioral 

response. This might have short-term 

impacts on the ability of cetaceans to 

feed near the survey area. However, 

only a small fraction of the available 

habitat would be ensonified at any given 

time, and fish species would return to 

their pre-disturbance behavior once the 

seismic activity ceased. Thus, the 

proposed surveys would have little 

impact on the abilities of marine 

mammals to feed in the area where 

seismic work is planned. Fish that do 

not avoid the approaching airguns 

(probably a small number) may be 

subject to auditory or other injuries. 

Zooplankton that are very close to the 

source may react to the airgun’s shock 

wave. These animals have an 

exoskeleton and no air sacs; therefore, 

little or no mortality is expected. Many 

crustaceans can make sounds and some 

crustacea and other invertebrates have 

some type of sound receptor. However, 

the reactions of zooplankton to sound 

are not known. Some mysticetes feed on 

concentrations of zooplankton. A 

reaction by zooplankton to a seismic 

impulse would only be relevant to 

whales if it caused a concentration of 

zooplankton to scatter. Pressure changes 

of sufficient magnitude to cause this 

type of reaction would probably occur 

only very close to the source, so few 

zooplankton concentrations would be 

affected. Impacts on zooplankton 

behavior are predicted to be negligible, 

and this would translate into negligible 

impacts on feeding mysticetes. 

Potential Effects on Subsistence Use of 

Marine Mammals 

There is no known legal subsistence 

hunting for marine mammals in the 

SPO, so the proposed SIO activities will 

not have any impact on the availability 

of these species or stocks for subsistence 

users. 

Proposed Mitigation 

For the proposed seismic survey in 

the SPO, SIO will deploy 2 GI-airguns 

as an energy source, each with a 

discharge volume of 45 in3. The energy 

from the airguns is directed mostly 

downward. The directional nature of the 

airguns to be used in this project is an 

important mitigating factor. This 

directionality will result in reduced 

sound levels at any given horizontal 

distance as compared with the levels 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 56963 

expected at that distance if the source 

were omnidirectional with the stated 

nominal source level. Also, the small 

size of these airguns is an inherent and 

important mitigation measure that will 

reduce the potential for effects relative 

to those that might occur with large 

airgun arrays. This measure is in 

conformance with NMFS policy of 

encouraging seismic operators to use the 

lowest intensity airguns practical to 

accomplish research objectives. 

The following mitigation measures, as 

well as marine mammal visual 

monitoring (discussed later in this 

document), would be implemented for 

the subject seismic surveys if the 

Secretary issues an IHA: (1) Speed and 

course alteration (provided that they do 

not compromise operational safety 

requirements); (2)shut-down 

procedures; and (3) ramp-up 

procedures. 

Speed and Course Alteration 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside its respective safety zone (180 

dB for cetaceans, 190 dB for pinnipeds) 

and, based on its position and the 

relative motion, is likely to enter the 

safety zone, the vessel’s speed and/or 

direct course will, when practical and 

safe, be changed to avoid the mammal 

in a manner that also minimizes the 

effect to the planned science objectives. 

The marine mammal activities and 

movements relative to the seismic vessel 

will be closely monitored to ensure that 

the marine mammal does not approach 

within the safety zone. If the marine 

mammal appears likely to enter the 

safety zone, further mitigative actions 

will be taken (i.e., either further course 

alterations or shut down of the airguns). 

Shut-down Procedures 

Although power-down procedures are 

often standard operating practice for 

seismic surveys, power-down is not 

proposed to be used for this activity 

because powering down from two guns 

to one gun would make only a small 

difference in the 180- or 190–dB radius- 

-probably not enough to allow 

continued one-gun operations if a 

marine mammal came within the safety 

radius for two guns. 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the safety radius but is likely to 

enter the safety radius, and if the 

vessel’s speed and/or course cannot be 

changed to avoid having the mammal 

enter the safety radius, the GI-guns will 

be shut down before the mammal is 

within the safety radius. Likewise, if a 

mammal is already within the safety 

zone when first detected, the airguns 

will be shut down immediately. 

Following a shut down, airgun 

activity will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the safety zone. 

The animal will be considered to have 

cleared the safety zone if it: (1) is 

visually observed to have left the safety 

zone, or (2) has not been seen within the 

zone for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds, or (3) has 

not been seen within the zone for 30 

min in the case of mysticetes and large 

odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy 

sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked and 

bottlenose whales. 

During airgun operations following a 

shut-down whose duration has 

exceeded these specified limits, the 

airgun array will be ramped-up 

gradually. 

Ramp-up Procedure 

A ramp-up procedure will be 

followed when the airguns begin 

operating after a period without airgun 

operations. The two GI guns will be 

added in sequence 5 minutes apart. 

During ramp-up procedures, the safety 

radius for the two GI guns will be 

maintained. 

During the day, ramp-up cannot begin 

from a shut-down unless the entire 180–

dB safety radius has been visible for at 

least 30 minutes prior to the ramp up 

(i.e., no ramp-up can begin in heavy fog 

or high sea states). 

During nighttime operations, if the 

entire safety radius is visible using 

vessel lights and night-vision devices 

(NVDs) (as may be the case in deep and 

intermediate waters), then start up of 

the airguns from a shut down may 

occur, after completion of the 30–

minute observation period. 

Comments on past IHAs raised the 

issue of prohibiting nighttime 

operations as a practical mitigation 

measure. However, this is not 

practicable due to cost considerations 

and ship time schedules. If the Revelle 

was prohibited from operating during 

nighttime, each trip could require an 

additional several days to complete. 

If a seismic survey vessel is limited to 

daylight seismic operations, efficiency 

would also be much reduced. For 

seismic operations in general, a 

daylight-only requirement would be 

expected to result in one or more of the 

following outcomes: cancellation of 

potentially valuable seismic surveys; 

reduction in the total number of seismic 

cruises annually due to longer cruise 

durations; a need for additional vessels 

to conduct the seismic operations; or 

work conducted by non-U.S. operators 

or non-U.S. vessels when in waters not 

subject to U.S. law. 

Marine Mammal Monitoring 

SIO must have at least three visual 

observers on board the Revelle, and at 

least two must be an experienced 

marine mammal observer that NMFS 

has approved in advance of the start of 

the SPO cruise. These observers will be 

on duty in shifts of no longer than 4 

hours. 

The visual observers will monitor 

marine mammals and sea turtles near 

the seismic source vessel during all 

daytime airgun operations, during any 

nighttime start-ups of the airguns, and at 

night whenever daytime monitoring 

resulted in one or more shut-down 

situations due to marine mammal 

presence. During daylight, vessel-based 

observers will watch for marine 

mammals and sea turtles near the 

seismic vessel during periods with 

shooting (including ramp-ups), and for 

30 minutes prior to the planned start of 

airgun operations after a shut-down. 

Use of multiple observers will 

increase the likelihood that marine 

mammals near the source vessel are 

detected. Revelle bridge personnel will 

also assist in detecting marine mammals 

and implementing mitigation 

requirements whenever possible (they 

will be given instruction on how to do 

so), especially during ongoing 

operations at night when the designated 

observers are on stand-by and not 

required to be on watch at all times. 

The observer(s) will watch for marine 

mammals from the highest practical 

vantage point on the vessel, which is 

either the bridge or the flying bridge. 

The observer(s) will systematically scan 

the area around the vessel with Big Eyes 

binoculars, reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 X 

50 Fujinon) and with the naked eye 

during the daytime. Laser range-finding 

binoculars (Leica L.F. 1200 laser 

rangefinder or equivalent) will be 

available to assist with distance 

estimation. The observers will be used 

to determine when a marine mammal or 

sea turtle is in or near the safety radii 

so that the required mitigation 

measures, such as course alteration and 

power-down or shut-down, can be 

implemented. If the GI-airguns are shut 

down, observers will maintain watch to 

determine when the animal is outside 

the safety radius. 

Observers will not be on duty during 

ongoing seismic operations at night; 

bridge personnel will watch for marine 

mammals during this time and will call 

for the airguns to be powered-down or 

shut-down if marine mammals are 

observed in or about to enter the safety 

radii. However, a biological observer 

must be on standby at night and 

available to assist the bridge watch if 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
56964 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 

marine mammals are detected at any 

distance from the Revelle. If the 2 GIairgun is ramped-up at night (see 

previous section), two marine mammal 

observers will monitor for marine 

mammals for 30 minutes prior to rampup and during the ramp-up using either 

deck lighting or NVDs that will be 

available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 

binocular image intensifier or 

equivalent). 

Post-Survey Monitoring 

In addition, the biological observers 

will be able to conduct monitoring of 

most recently-run transect lines as the 

Revelle returns along parallel and 

perpendicular transect tracks (see inset 

of Figure 1 in the SIO application). This 

will provide the biological observers 

with opportunities to look for injured or 

dead marine mammals (although no 

injuries or mortalities are expected 

during this research cruise). 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) 

Because of the very small zone for 

potential Level A harassment, SIO has 

not proposed to use the PAM system 

during this cruise. 

Summary 

Taking into consideration the 

additional costs of prohibiting nighttime 

operations and the likely impact of the 

activity (including all mitigation and 

monitoring), NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the proposed mitigation 

and monitoring ensures that the activity 

will have the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks. Marine 

mammals will have sufficient notice of 

a vessel approaching with operating 

seismic airguns, thereby giving them an 

opportunity to avoid the approaching 

array; if ramp-up is required, two 

marine mammal observers will be 

required to monitor the safety radii 

using shipboard lighting or NVDs for at 

least 30 minutes before ramp-up begins 

and verify that no marine mammals are 

in or approaching the safety radii; rampup may not begin unless the entire 

safety radii are visible. 

Reporting 

SIO will submit a report to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise, which is currently predicted to 

occur during December, 2006 and 

January, 2007. The report will describe 

the operations that were conducted and 

the marine mammals that were detected. 

The report must provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring tasks. The report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, marine mammal 

sightings (dates, times, locations, 

activities, associated seismic survey 

activities), and estimates of the amount 

and nature of potential take of marine 

mammals by harassment or in other 

ways. 

During the recent SIO cruise to the 

Louisville Ridge (71 FR 6041, February 

6, 2006), there were 5 sightings of 

marine mammals. All observed marine 

mammals were non-evasive of the 

research vessel and its activities. Only 

one sighting occurred while the seismic 

source was active. The animal’s closest 

approach to the ship was greater than 2 

km (1.08 nm), well outside the 40 m 

(131.2 ft) safety radius for the seismic 

source used on that cruise. For 

additional information please see the 

Louisville Ridge cruise report (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#iha. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Under section 7 of the ESA, the 

National Science Foundation (NSF), the 

agency funding this SIO project, has 

begun consultation on the proposed 

seismic survey. NMFS will also consult 

on the issuance of an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this 

activity. Consultation will be concluded 

prior to a determination on the issuance 

of an IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The NSF made a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) 

determination on November 3, 2005 (70 

FR 68102, November 9, 2005), based on 

information contained within its EA 

(see 70 FR 39346, July 7, 2005, for 

public availability), that implementation of a low-energy seismic survey in 

the SPO is not a major Federal action 

having significant effects on the 

environment within the meaning of 

NEPA. The NSF determined, therefore, 

that an environmental impact statement 

would not be prepared. 

NMFS noted that the NSF had 

prepared an EA for a previous SIO 2–

GI airgun survey in the SPO and made 

this EA available upon request (70 FR 

60287, October 17, 2005). In accordance 

with NOAA Administrative Order 216–

6 (Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 

1999), NMFS reviewed the information 

contained in NSF’s EA and determined 

that the NSF EA accurately and 

completely describes the proposed 

action alternative, and the potential 

impacts on marine mammals, 

endangered species, and other marine 

life that could be impacted by the 

preferred alternative and the other 

alternatives. Accordingly, NMFS 

adopted the NSF EA under 40 CFR 

1506.3 and made its own FONSI. The 

NMFS FONSI also took into 

consideration additional mitigation 

measures that are not in NSF’s EA. 

Therefore, because the actions described 

in that EA are similar in context and 

intensity to the current proposed 

activity, it is not necessary for NMFS to 

issue a new EA, a supplemental EA or 

an environmental impact statement for 

the proposed issuance of an IHA to SIO 

for this activity. A copy of the EA and 

previous FONSI for this activity is 

available upon request. A copy of the 

NSF EA for this activity is available 

upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

Preliminary Conclusions 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the impact of conducting the 

seismic survey in the SPO may result, 

at worst, in a temporary modification in 

behavior of small numbers of certain 

species of marine mammals. This 

activity is expected to result in no more 

than a negligible impact on the affected 

species or stocks. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document, this preliminary 

determination is supported by: (1) the 

likelihood that, given advance notice 

through relatively slow ship speed and 

ramp-up, marine mammals are expected 

to move away from a noise source that 

is annoying before it becomes 

potentially injurious; (2) recent research 

that indicates that TTS is unlikely (at 

least in delphinids) until levels closer to 

200–205 dB re 1 microPa are reached 

rather than 180 dB re 1 microPa; (3) the 

fact that 200–205 dB isopleths would be 

well within 100 m (328 ft) of the vessel 

even in shallow water; and (4) the 

likelihood that marine mammal 

detection in the safety zone by trained 

observers is close to 100 percent during 

daytime and remains high at night to the 

short distance from the seismic vessel. 

As a result, no take by injury or death 

is anticipated or authorized, and the 

potential for temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment is very low and 

would be avoided through the 

incorporation of the proposed 

mitigation measures mentioned in this 

document. 

While the number of potential 

incidental harassment takes will depend 

on the distribution and abundance of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

survey activity, the number of potential 

harassment takings is estimated to be 

small. In addition, the proposed seismic 

program will not interfere with any 

known legal subsistence hunts, since 

seismic operations will not take place in 

subsistence whaling and sealing areas 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Notices 56965 

and will not affect marine mammals 

used for subsistence purposes. 

Proposed Authorization 

NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to 

SIO for conducting an oceanographic 

seismic survey in the SPO, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed activity would result in the 

harassment of small numbers of marine 

mammals; would have no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal stocks; and would not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. 

Dated: September 22, 2006. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–8353 Filed 9–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 062206A] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to the U.S. Navy Operations 

of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor 

System Low Frequency Active Sonar 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Receipt of 

Application; request for comments and 

information. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy for an authorization 

under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) to take marine mammals, 

by harassment, incidental to conducting 

operations of Surveillance Towed Array 

Sensor System (SURTASS) Low 

Frequency Active (LFA) sonar from 

August 16, 2007 through August 15, 

2012. In order to promulgate regulations 

and issue annual Letters of 

Authorization (LOAs) to the Navy, 

NMFS must determine that these 

takings will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species and stocks of 

marine mammals, will not have an 

unmitigable impact on the availability 

of the species or stock(s) for subsistence 

uses, and must prescribe the means of 

mitigating the potential impact to the 

lowest level practicable. NMFS invites 

comment on the application and 

suggestions on the content of any future 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be postmarked no later than October 30, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to: P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

PR1.062306A@noaa.gov. Comments 

sent via e-mail, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 10–

megabyte file size. Please use only one 

method for commenting. 

A copy of the Navy’s 2007 MMPA 

application and the current SURTASS 

LFA sonar monitoring report may be 

obtained by writing to the above 

address, by telephoning the contact 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, or at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/protlres/PR2/ 

SmalllTake/ 

smalltakelinfo.htm#applications. A 

copy of the Navy’s Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 

SEIS) may be downloaded at the 

following URL: http://www.surtass-lfaeis.com/Impactstate05.htm 

Documents cited in this notice may 

also be viewed, by appointment, during 

regular business hours at this address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth R. Hollingshead, NMFS, at 

301–713–2289, ext 128. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary 

of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional taking of marine mammals 

by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) if certain findings 

are made and regulations are issued. 

An authorization may be granted for 

periods of 5 years or less if the Secretary 

finds that the total taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s); will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses; 

if regulations are prescribed setting forth 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on affected species, 

stocks and its habitat; and, the 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ With respect 

to military readiness activities, the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: 

(i) any act that injures or has the significant 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A 

harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or 

is likely to disturb a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of natural behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering, to a point where such behavioral 

patterns are abandoned or significantly 

altered [Level B harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On May 12, 2006, NMFS received an 

application from the U.S. Navy 

requesting an authorization under 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for 

the taking of marine mammals by 

harassment incidental to employment of 

the SURTASS LFA sonar system during 

training, testing, and routine military 

operations for a period of time not to 

exceed 5 years, beginning on August 16, 

2007. The proposed action is the U.S. 

Navy’s use of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

in ocean waters excluding any areas 

necessary to prevent 180–decibel (dB) 

sound pressure level (SPL) or greater 

within a specific geographic range from 

shore, in offshore biologically important 

areas during biologically important 

seasons, and in areas necessary to 

prevent greater than 145–dB SPL at 

known recreational and commercial 

dive sites. The SURTASS LFA sonar 

program will operate a maximum of 4 

ship systems in those regions in which 

SURTASS LFA sonar could potentially 

operate. During employment of the 

SURTASS LFA sonar system, acoustic 

signals will be introduced into the water 

column that could potentially affect 

marine mammals. Because marine 

mammals may be harassed due to noise 

disturbance incidental to the 

employment of the SURTASS LFA 

sonar system during training, testing, 

and routine military operations, an 

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA is warranted. A copy of 

the Navy’s MMPA application is 

available for public review (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Background 

On July 16, 2002, NMFS published a 

final rule (67 FR 46712) for the taking 

of marine mammals incidental to 

operations of SURTASS LFA sonar and, 

on August 16, 2002 issued an LOA to 

the R/V Cory Chouest. The preamble to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES